...

I have to agree with this. I don't get the evil rich guy complaint in this instance. Actually, I generally don't get the evil rich guy complaints for the most part, except for when it applies to the overtly criminal. I mean, who here sits and beyotches about working class people running down to PA to pick up a few boxes of fireworks? That's illegal, and just no darn good. The guy is trying to live up to his famous proclamation that the Sabres are going to win multiple cups while he is owner. Okay, he's not screwing around. He has a chicken hawk GM, and he wants the best coach money can buy. Seriously, if I had the resources, I would do the exact same thing. Is he taking advantage of the business structure of the league? Sure is. Would I? Absolutely. I guess that makes sizzlemeister evil. Is he going to set a league precedent, more than likely raising costs for teams league-wide? I reckon so. Would I make that decision. Hell yeah. In fact, while making the decision, I would say out loud "they should have made sure we won the lottery". Sizzlemeister must be truly evil. Are the fans going to get ticket price increases? Guess so. You want a Cup, right? Sizzlemeister says you have to pay to play, and we ain't playing around, here, Jack. You're welcome to watch, for free, on the TV. You can hang out, for free, outside the arena during the playoffs with 20k other people who can't/won't/forgot to pay for the tickets. Check out Stub-Hub on a value-night game. Totally agreed.

It's great to be here, ain't it?

I like this. I think it may also make him think twice about what he really has over there in Detroit. It also tells him that he's REALLY wanted over here, we're not just whistling Dixie.

Right, which is what anyone reasonable should expect. I'd liked how he compared this situation with Nolan's. Murray wasn't going to trust or care what Nolan had to say...but he will with Babcock.

First offer must have been $5 mil x 4 years. This one, $6.25 mil x 8 years.

$50 million and he's "undecided". He also refers to himself in the third person from time to time. This cat is a character, that's for sure.

Okay, but that's obvious, right? I understand that lines of demarcation need to be drawn, however, again, there has been a specific narrative suggesting Babcock will seem to want more "power" than is reasonable and Murray won't want share a reasonable amount of "power". So, the question is, at what point did either men come off as unreasonable hockey people, more interested in their status and power rather than putting together a winning team? I say neither have ever come off this way and to jump on the narrative as if it makes sense is ridiculous. Of course they're going to discuss organizational structure before coming to an agreement, but how anyone can believe either side would be unreasonable about what it will take to build a winning team is beyond me. You don't go after the likes of Babcock without realizing, first, that he's going to need to have some room to do what he wants and needs to do.

This narrative took root somewhere several weeks ago and it has boggled my mind since. It's almost like one of the WGR or Buffalo News guys put out the idea at some point, only to have a conversational pivot point to keep up a dialogue.

I'm having a very difficult time believing this narrative, is all. It doesn't make a lick of sense that roster flexibility would be an issue between Murray and Babcock.

Okay, what could Babcock legitimately want, knowing his experience as a "winning" NHL coach, with regards to player personnel that would be SUCH a big deal in negotiations? Why wouldn't you WANT to trust your big name, Stanley Cup winning coach with some roster flexibility? Murray isn't a power-hungry dingbat, right? Did I miss catching on to that part of his personality somewhere?

Vogl coaching source = my kid's junior soccer coach, who, as it happens, also makes great chocolate chip cookies when she has the time.

You need to fire off some letters to people, explaining things.

I missed it, I guess, but I will look at it. It's similar to me to the Murray can't "share power" with Babcock stuff. And, BRAWNDO et al., no offense meant with my reaction; I'm not saying you are ridiculous, but just the idea. It seems so petty and unprofessional.

Where does this come from? Why would Murray get fired if Babcock comes here? That's utter ridiculousness. And, you don't hire a guy like Babcock to ignore his roster preferences. You hire a guy like Babcock because you believe he knows what he's doing with the roster.

The choice is Babcock's, but the guy is a stand-up guy and he is at least going to go to his wife and family for counsel. They have to live with him for the next five years, they know him best, they know how big this decision is and what he wants. Your wife, especially, but your kids and immediate family, too, all know more about how you are and what you'll be like. Babcock isn't an idiot, or a jerk, so I would lay a million bucks on the bet that his wife's input, at least, is considered nearly as strongly as his own.

Dude, the popcorn issue is real.

Ha! I get you. Used to be, at the Aud. I can't remember whom, but I recall a player talking up how good the popcorn was at the Aud when I was a kid.

Babcock to discuss quality of popcorn at Joe Louis Arena with Holland, speculation is that it's the pivotal issue.

Man, you need to relax and put on your summer-chillin' hat, because it's not worth it to get all worked up over this kind of banality. I said "seem desirable", which is pretty far from endorsing the socio/political conditions here and in Michigan, although Michigan, as a state, is better off, IMHO, than either California or NY. And since you're going to, once again, slam the "you don't know what he likes or thinks" card down forcibly upon the table, is there anything to suggest Babs "gives a crap" about scenic, sunset drives along the ocean? I mean, as much as I insinuated he would care about the socio/political aspects of his chosen new digs, you keep insinuating the aesthetics of the teams locale matter. Or, are neither of us insinuating anything and just offering our personal opinions, as if we were choosing for Babcock?

That part of the state is pretty, but the political/social environment makes NYS seem desirable.

To add, if you read the article, SJ isn't really Babcock's ideal situation: if he has a problem with the Wing's aging core, he'll have a similar problem in SJ. The owner is not likely to pony up the bread like Pegula can and will, and his buddy, McLellan, says SJ is in a "prolonged rebuild". Frankly, I don't care for California as a destination, let alone a state to consider living in, so, I would disagree that it's "by far the nicest location for non-hockey factors".

NO ONE EXPECTS 14 MINUTES OF PISSED-OFF GOALIES IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS THREAD!

Here's another thought I had on that goofy interview: maybe Babcock is doing Holland a solid. Perhaps Babs has made up his mind to leave, and Holland wanted him to go public with him to make it look like Babs decision was a labored one. By so doing, they make it look like the Wings organization is strong, and that Babs leaving wouldn't be the end of the world.

Just filling in the gaps in the storyline until we know the final outcome. Isn't that what the interwebz are for?

GoDD has made a good presentation on Disco Dan. If Babs doesn't come our way, I think Disco Dan would be the crazy, Hunter S. Thompson-esque move. That would rock in its own way.